• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Penn & Teller on Cheerleaders

Brown

Penultimate Amazing
Brown
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
12,984
I watched the opening episode of the new season of the Penn & Teller show, the one dealing with cheerleaders.

I can't make any sense of it. The whole episode seemed to be disjointed. Did anyone else get that feeling?

Basically, the problem is that cheerleading is dangerous. Cheerleaders can get seriously--and we mean seriously--hurt, if (a) they aren't careful; (b) they perform moves that are too risky; (c) they have poor training, supervision, equipment and medical attention; and (d) they perform without safety measures such as spotters. Lots of cheerleaders get hurt, and some of them REALLY get hurt. More girls get hurt as cheerleaders than get hurt in gymnastics, hockey, volleyball, etc.

So where does the BS part come in?

Apparently the boys thought it was BS that cheerleading wasn't a "sport" under Title IX.

Apparently the boys also thought it was BS that cheerleading was effectively under the control of a for-profit monopoly called Varsity (and its subsidiaries).

Umm...

Certainly the boys, being Good Little Libertarians, couldn't be advocating for an enhanced governmental role, could they, with more bureaucratic regulation? If so, why would it be necessary to amend Title IX to include cheerleading? What difference does it make whether the government declares something a "sport" or not? Isn't the main thing to put pressure on the cheerleading programs NOT to encourage the girls to perform more hazardous moves with less margins for safety? For crying out loud, Cirque de Soliel uses safety equipment and spotters in many of its acts, without affecting the artistry or quality of the performances (and apparently does so without having to be told to do so by any regulating body). Would it be so tough for cheerleaders to follow this lead?

And if there is a corporate monopoly that is running and regulating the business, what is to stop someone from starting a competing business or seeking the protection of antitrust laws?

The boys did urge parents to make sure that a school is operating a safe cheerleading program before letting their kids join that program. This made sense, but it seemed like a throwaway point. The main point was that cheerleading ought to be a "sport" under Title IX, but there seemed to be no logical reason why such a designation would reduce the risks associated with the activity.
 
Thank you for an interesting and informative post. I have nothing else to add except surprise that cheerleading is so dangerous.
 
I thought this was going to be P&T hot cheerleader porn. Carry on.
(I think the boys are running out of topics)
 
While it does seem inconsistant with their normal political agenda, it's a good point when you look at it on its own merits. I have no problem with it being considered a sport and if more oversight would improve safety, go for it.
 
"What difference does it make whether the government declares something a "sport" or not?"

That point was explained at the start if I recall correctly. Something declared as a sport has certain standard to meet on, for example tatami, medical equipement, specific course on first aid etc...

As they I think showed a bit haphazardly, because it was not designed as a sport, the examinator can require the girl to practice without protection or tatami, because it is not a sport, they can get to teach without basic first aid knowledge, etc...

By declaring it a sport, first varsity would lose some money (the 600+ national competition ;)), and potentially on other points. If it was a sport due to the training of the teacher and the minimum security requirement (tatmi?) there would be a tad more security.

It was not very convincing, to me, but the argument sounded logical at first viewing.

But I give it a C- note : Not enough half naked girl with big breast.
 
I thought this was P&T literally on cheerleaders. Glad it's not because that would be icky.
 
My niece is a cheerleader and she has been hurt a lot. The coaches they showed on BS! had way more training than the coaches at my niece's high school. They just hired former cheerleaders (now college students) to be the coaches. My niece got a concussion last year when another cheerleader (a "flyer") came down and hit my niece (a "base") in the head. The coaches told her to walk it off, basically, but then later my niece started speaking nonsensically and crying for no apparent reason. They sent her home after that and my sis-in-law took her to the doctor.
 
We've had cheerleaders hurt a lot locally.

And this is NEW ENGLAND, we aren't even a "serious" cheerleader state.

Broken arms, concussions, ankle and wrist injuries...
plus no protective gear just tiny costumes!

The high school has an "alternative" dance group (non-cheer). They do cool dances and have more members then the regular cheerleaders (varstity and junior). Frankly, they are just more interesting to watch. It's cheerleading but they stay on the ground.
 
Brown said:
I watched the opening episode of the new season of the Penn & Teller show, the one dealing with cheerleaders.

I can't make any sense of it. The whole episode seemed to be disjointed. Did anyone else get that feeling?

Basically, the problem is that cheerleading is dangerous. Cheerleaders can get seriously--and we mean seriously--hurt, if (a) they aren't careful; (b) they perform moves that are too risky; (c) they have poor training, supervision, equipment and medical attention; and (d) they perform without safety measures such as spotters. Lots of cheerleaders get hurt, and some of them REALLY get hurt. More girls get hurt as cheerleaders than get hurt in gymnastics, hockey, volleyball, etc.

So where does the BS part come in?

Apparently the boys thought it was BS that cheerleading wasn't a "sport" under Title IX.

Apparently the boys also thought it was BS that cheerleading was effectively under the control of a for-profit monopoly called Varsity (and its subsidiaries).

Umm...

Certainly the boys, being Good Little Libertarians, couldn't be advocating for an enhanced governmental role, could they, with more bureaucratic regulation? If so, why would it be necessary to amend Title IX to include cheerleading? What difference does it make whether the government declares something a "sport" or not? Isn't the main thing to put pressure on the cheerleading programs NOT to encourage the girls to perform more hazardous moves with less margins for safety? For crying out loud, Cirque de Soliel uses safety equipment and spotters in many of its acts, without affecting the artistry or quality of the performances (and apparently does so without having to be told to do so by any regulating body). Would it be so tough for cheerleaders to follow this lead?

And if there is a corporate monopoly that is running and regulating the business, what is to stop someone from starting a competing business or seeking the protection of antitrust laws?

The boys did urge parents to make sure that a school is operating a safe cheerleading program before letting their kids join that program. This made sense, but it seemed like a throwaway point. The main point was that cheerleading ought to be a "sport" under Title IX, but there seemed to be no logical reason why such a designation would reduce the risks associated with the activity.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the new season of Bull**** is not off to a good start. The show was simply not entertaining.
I think the point was the title IX in general is stupid.Of course as good Libertarians the boys are probably against public schools in the first place.
Sorry, but the show is rapidly becoming nothing but a platform for Penn to push his Libertarian viewpoint.
 
What I took away from the episode is that the entire cheerleading "industry" is monopolized by a single company who is exploiting the "non sport" status of cheerleading to make a ton of money that they could not otherwise make if the status was changed to "sport". Said company is pressuring organizations to keep cheerleading in it's "non sport" status because of said money making. Said company is also full of BS because it says that it's concerned about safety, putting up that facade by offering "training programs" (that they also make money off of) that leave it's trainee's severely under trained in actual safety, calling cheerleaders "athletes", all the while continuing to fight against having cheerleading considered a sport (which would mean that it would have to adhere to established sports safety regulations).

So, it comes down to "Varsity is full of BS when they say they care about safety and, because of that, cheerleading is one of the most dangerous school sports (yes, I call it a sport) there is."
 
Personally, as a band member, I was always just jealous that the cheerleaders would go to the away games and the band members didn't.
 
I had no idea how dangerous the sport is. And I do feel it should be declared a sport. Yea, they have stepped away from their Libertarian views. However, maybe this is a sign that they are starting to doubt their own Libertarian philosophies.
 
And.. their Libertarian values come right back up in the second episode about fast food.
 
"The BS part" is how amazingly badly regulated cheerleading is, how terrible the safety standards are and how enormously dangerous it is, the way that it is practiced today. Also the idea that it is "not a sport".

Agreed, though, that this is more of an argument for 60 Minutes than Penn and Teller's BS.

They aren't debunking anything.
 
If there is no defense, it's not a sport. Now, if they let other squads try to take down the pyramid, then we might have a sport. Of course, if "winning" is a matter of opinion, it's not a sport. It's an exhibition. Track and field is at least a competition, just not a sport. If a woman needs a bikini wax and glitter make-up to compete, it's not a sport. It's a runway show.

Oh, and here are some other ideas (just an aside):

* Basketball should work like bowling: Four points in the standings per event. One point for winning each of the three periods (no more quarters), and a fourth point for total points.

* In baseball any attempt to pick off a runner should be a ball. There needs to be a pitch clock as well.

* In hockey, for one minute each period a second puck is put into play, like in pinball. Also, like in pinball, for one minute each period a light comes on above each goal. Any goal made during that time is worth two points.

* In soccer you should be allowed to use your hands. How stupid is it to create a sport where we're not allowed to use our most highly developed appendages? The suggestions for hockey apply as well.

* In American football, no changes need to be made. It was born perfect and continues to be perfect in every way. Including the cheerleaders.
 
SkeptiChick said:
What I took away from the episode is that the entire cheerleading "industry" is monopolized by a single company who is exploiting the "non sport" status of cheerleading to make a ton of money that they could not otherwise make if the status was changed to "sport". Said company is pressuring organizations to keep cheerleading in it's "non sport" status because of said money making. Said company is also full of BS because it says that it's concerned about safety, putting up that facade by offering "training programs" (that they also make money off of) that leave it's trainee's severely under trained in actual safety, calling cheerleaders "athletes", all the while continuing to fight against having cheerleading considered a sport (which would mean that it would have to adhere to established sports safety regulations).

So, it comes down to "Varsity is full of BS when they say they care about safety and, because of that, cheerleading is one of the most dangerous school sports (yes, I call it a sport) there is."
Click to expand...

^ What she said.

Whether or not modern cheerleading fits one's personal definition of "sport", it most certainly is a form of gymnastics, and deserves equal safety and training standards.

ETA: For those who think cheerleading is just girls on the sidelines with pom-poms...
 
Last edited:
UncaYimmy said:
If there is no defense, it's not a sport. Now, if they let other squads try to take down the pyramid, then we might have a sport. Of course, if "winning" is a matter of opinion, it's not a sport. It's an exhibition. Track and field is at least a competition, just not a sport. If a woman needs a bikini wax and glitter make-up to compete, it's not a sport. It's a runway show.
Click to expand...
What about gymnastics and figure skating? Are they sports?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom